Central Information Commission
Smt.Manju Sharma vs Ndmc, Gnct Delhi on 12 July, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001389/13409
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001389
Relevant Facts Emerging From the Appeal:
Appellant : Ms. Manju Sharma
Room No. 1110, 11th Floor
N.D.M.C Palikakendra, Parliament Street
New Delhi.
Respondent : Mr. Rattan Singh
Dy. Director & CPIO N.D.M.C Palika Kendra, Parliament Street New Delhi.
RTI application filed on : 15/03/2011 PIO replied on : 20/04/2011 First Appeal filed on : 25/04/2011 First Appellate Authority order of : 23/06/2011 Second Appeal received on : 31/03/2011 Information Sought:
1. The total no. of Posts of Architectural Asstt. in the Yr.1996 and bifurcation of the internal and external vacant Ports.
PIO's Reply:
1. The total number of sanctioned post of Architectural Assistant in the year 1996- 12 Nos.
2. Method of recruitment of this post - 50% by promotion i.e. 6 posts & 50% by Direct Recruitment i.e. 6 posts Grounds for the First Appeal:
Information furnished was unsatisfactory and highly evasive.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
APIO is hereby directed to reach at the correct figure from the authentic record and provide the photocopy and also documents to the appellant giving information about sanctioned posts of architectural assistant in the year 1996 by 30/06/2011. PIO has also not given the number of vacant posts in 1996 APIO is directed to given the correct information with relevant copies to the Appellant by 30/06/2011.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Not mentioned.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Ms. Manju Sharma;
Respondent: Mr. Rattan Singh, Dy. Director & CPIO;
The PIO has attempted to give information based on the records. The Appellant is seeking information which does not appear to be directly available on the records and in discussions with the Appellant and the Respondents it appears to the Commission that the exact information being sought by the Appellant may not be available directly on the records. Hence it becomes the matter of interpreting certain notings and other documents. The appellant would like to inspect the relevant records on 15 July 2011.
The PIO is directed to facilitate an inspection of the relevant records by the Appellant on 15 July 2011 from 11.00AM onwards at the office of the PIO. In case there are any records or file which the appellant believes should exist, which are not shown to him, he will give this in writing to the PIO at the time of inspection and the PIO will either give the files/records or give it in writing that such files/records do not exist.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to facilitate an inspection of the relevant records by the Appellant on 15 July 2011 from 11.00AM onwards. The PIO will give attested photocopies of records which the Appellant wants free of cost upto 100 pages. This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 12 July 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (SB)